Monarchies rule

If anybody asks me, and they usually don't, I always say I'm an Australian republican, and I'd vote as I did in 1999 to end the monarchy and 'break John Howard's heart'.

But I've yet to sort out a worry I've had for twenty years, and it's this.

The best countries in the world are monarchies.

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Spain, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, all monarchies, are enviable societies; and they're in sharp contrast with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Gaza, Israel, Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Congo, Nigeria, Cuba, Mexico, Haiti, Panama, North Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Haiti, Russia, China and the United States, all of which are republics and most of which overthrew their kings with violence.

There are some exceptions, of course. Austria and Germany, both republics, are very good societies now, though they in recent times produced Hitler. The monarchies of Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait are very bad societies, stoning adulteresses to death and banning alcohol. Nepal in its pre-Maoist phase was pretty shocking but good to go trekking in. Tonga, though it has pleasant ruritanian-socialist qualities, line-ball.

Some republics are line-ball too. Greece since its king was evicted has flirted with military dictators, and Italy likewise with colourful short-arse fascists; and as for Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, the Ukraine and East Timor it's perhaps too early to say.

India and Pakistan, though technically ruled by the British Queen, are too confused in their present wobbly arrangements to classify either way. Zimbabwe though theoretically under Elizabeth II has lately acquired a usurping mad monarch of its own. And Monaco and Liechtenstein, though theoretically monarchies, are more like heightened municipalities. Thailand, remotely ruled by a thoughtful king who interferes now and then, is probably line-ball too.

But you would still be hard put to find twelve republics to match Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Spain, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, my good monarchies. Venezuela? Guatemala? Fiji? The United States? Give me a break.

Why is it constitutional monarchies work as well as they do? It's because, I think, they provide a level of judgement above the level of chiacking politicians, which dignifies the country. It's the constitutional equivalent of an umpire.

However illusory, it gives the voters a comfort-zone which the opposing system does not. In a Republic, Alan Jones can be elected President, and for millions of Australians there is no joy in that. In a Republic, a George Bush can be accorded god-like qualities, and this can enrage decent civilised atheists everywhere.

A constitutional monarch is less like a god, or a Caesar or a Great Dictator, and more like a Guardian Angel; and somewhere in the human psyche there is room for this idea. It's what I call a sustaining fantasy, the kind of thing we suspect isn't true, but it's what keeps us going.

It needs good mild monarchs in the saddle however, Elizabeth not Gyanendra, to keep the show on the road. And it needs, perhaps, the kind of monarchs the Dutch and Scandinavians have, monarchs on bicycles, monarchs with middle-class hobbies like stamp-collecting and water-colours.

Or monarchs like Princess Di who hug AIDS patients and campaign against cluster-bombs and show off their legs.

There may be an argument for preventing an eighty-year-old King Charles from ascending the throne in 2028. But he seems, so far, to be more modern and sympathetic in his beliefs - in multiculturalism, sensible diet, architectural preservation, Spike Milligan, Buddha and sustainable farming - than, say, Tony Blair or John Howard, who prefer, on the whole, to slaughter heathens. And he's not a murderous dipstick like the avid Republican George Bush.